A Smithsonian women’s history museum is moving forward, with Congress weighing how it will be funded and where it will go. Whether we even need a women’s museum is a separate question. But if taxpayers are going to be asked to help pay for it, there’s a pretty basic standard that should come with it. The institution behind it should know what a woman is. Right now, that doesn’t seem to be the case.

Back in normal times, what I’m about to bring to you might have passed as an April Fool’s joke. But today, it is not. Unfortunately.

The Daily Wire tells us that the Smithsonian wants to create a museum for women. Okay. However, they have no idea what the hell they are doing. Or, maybe they do and that’s even more nefarious.

Academics who do not know what a woman is should not be the taxpayer-funded gatekeepers of women’s history. But ever since Congress authorized the Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum in 2020, the Smithsonian Institution has made it clear that gender ideology matters more than biological truth in its version of women’s history.

[…]

The Smithsonian also features seven other males: United States Congressman Timothy “Sarah” McBride and Biden-era Assistant Secretary for Health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Richard “Rachel” Levine, “the highest-ranking openly transgender government official in U.S. history,” Cecilia Chung (a California based advocate for sex-rejecting procedures), Marsha P. Johnson, Andrea Jenkins, Sylvia Rivera, and Janet Mock. It is unacceptable that eight men are hailed as historical women on a taxpayer-funded “.gov” website. – The Daily Wire

But for this blog post, we are going to stick to Jazz Jennings

A Preview of What This Museum Will Be

The Smithsonian Institution has already given a preview of how it plans to answer that question. In its traveling exhibit “Girlhood: It’s Complicated,” the museum laid out what it considers part of the modern story of growing up female. That matters, because this isn’t theoretical. This is the framework being tested before a permanent museum ever opens its doors.

One of the figures included in that exhibit is Jazz Jennings, presented as part of that broader definition of “girlhood.” That choice tells you a lot about how the institution is approaching this. Not quietly. Not cautiously. But directly, and with intention.

Because museums don’t just display artifacts. They curate narratives. They decide what gets elevated, what gets framed, and what gets remembered. When the Smithsonian places something under the label of “girlhood,” it’s not offering a suggestion. It’s making a statement.

And if this is the preview, it’s fair to ask what the full version looks like.

Update from Ben –> Should Taxpayers Fund A Women’s Museum That Features Jazz Jennings? https://t.co/iwhIMk4Pa9 pic.twitter.com/byZCYOz7gl

— Lieutenant Colonel Reagan (@bobbyr75) April 1, 2026

What They’re Calling “Girlhood”

If you want to understand where this is headed, look at the story the Smithsonian chose to elevate. Jazz Jennings didn’t just appear in that exhibit by accident. That was a deliberate choice. A decision about what counts as “girlhood.”

And the details matter.

Jazz was socially transitioned as a small child. By the time puberty hit, the next steps were already in motion. Puberty blockers. Hormones. Then surgery as a teenager. AS A TEENAGER! Not as an adult making a decision. As a minor, still growing, still developing, still figuring out the basics of life.

That’s not a small thing. That’s the center of the story.

And yet, the version that gets presented feels clean. Almost easy. A journey people are told to accept without asking too many questions.

Kellie-Jay Keen has been one of the more vocal critics of how cases like this are handled, especially when it comes to minors. Her focus is simple. Children cannot fully understand or consent to decisions that carry permanent consequences. And once those decisions are made, there’s no clean way to walk them back.

That reality doesn’t show up much in the polished version of the story. But it exists.

At one point, during a follow-up after surgery complications, a trans doctor reportedly joked to Jazz that he could be a porn star based on the number of photos taken during the process. Jazz was still a teenager.

Let that sit for a second.

That’s not empowerment. And it most certainly isn’t “girlhood.” That’s something else entirely.

So if this is the starting point, it’s fair to ask how far that definition is going to stretch once the museum is fully built and backed by taxpayer dollars.

If It Shows Up, Call It What It Is

If the Smithsonian Institution wants to include stories like Jazz Jennings, then they should tell the truth.

Call it what it is. A minor was put on puberty blockers, given hormones, and taken into surgery before adulthood. And it is profound child abuse. Medical professionals and warped parents are responsible for a whole generation of disturbance and abuse.

This is not a neutral story. It is not a simple one. And it is not a stand-in for growing up female.

When the Smithsonian wants to document it, then show the whole picture. The risks. The complications. The fact that a child was at the center of it. Show the world what they did to children during a time of transcult ideology taking hold of America. Show that. Show the nitty gritty painful truth of what they did. I’ll say it again, profound child abuse.

But don’t relabel it and place it under women’s history as if it belongs there without question.

That’s not history. That’s messaging.

And taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for it.

You can see it now. Opening day, cameras rolling, and a lineup of familiar names like Dylan Mulvaney, Dick Levine, Tim McBride, and Eddie Izzard walking through a “girlhood” exhibit while getting their fetish thrills. Gross.

Feature Image: ai-generated and edited with Canva Pro